Is replacing Maverick with JCM a good idea?

If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.

Can you name which weapons are "GPS dependent"? JDAM is not (it uses an
inertial guidance system, with GPS updates providing enhanced accuracy, but
it is still pretty accurate with just the inertial), and I doubt SDB will
be, either.

JDAM, JSOW, JASSM. Sure they have inertial backups but they aren't
going to be flying into any open doors or individual buildings with
them. If GPS is down that means they get their initial coordinate
from the launching aircraft's INS. Those drift and aren't precision
by any stretch.






JCM is to use three guidance systems, all packaged into one
missile--MMW radar, semi-active laser, and IR. So your point would be...?

Well since GPS isn't a JCM form of guidance you obviously MISSED my
point. I commented on JCM's short range and small warhead and you
said "well we could use XXX instead". "XXX" being a GPS guided weapon
of one kind or another.



Not to mention that the DoD has apparently been staying a jump ahead of
jamming attempts to date, and has expressed a strong desire to continue in
that mode.


Great. Doesn't mean they'll always succeed.




Also your
targeting options are going to be substantially less than a LOAL
Maverick not to mention the lack of precision compared to a Maverick.

Lack of precision? Can you point to any source that indicates JCM will be
*less* precise than the AGM-65 family?


Like I said, you missed the point. We're talking about GPS guided
weapons.



With a tri-mode seeker, it would be
hard to say that JCM will offer less targeting options than the Maverick,
which forces you to target using the single system available to that
particular variant.

A JCM will not be able to take out the full spectrum of Maverick
targets anymore than an SDB will be able to handle 2000lb BLU-109
targets.

And as I said earlier, if the target is such that it is determined a JCM
*can't* handle it, then other options will remain available. What is the
single "target set" that the military services are most concerned with being
able to kill these days? Those that are mobile (the whole idea behind
reducing the sensor-to-shooter lagtime). How many mobile targets are there
that can't be killed by a JCM but can be killed by a Maverick?


Well you go hit those SA-17 sites with your JCM and I'll use a LOAL
Maverick. Who do you think will have more fun?



Darned few
(medium sized and larger combatant vessels being the majority of those few,
though JCM's dual/tandem warhead would not make life easy for *any* patrol
combatatnt it hits--and we still have Harpoon to deal with those). If the
target is a MBT, then you need a direct hit to be assured of killing
it--even with a Maverick; so why would JCM be a less capable missile in this
regard?

Range, range, range.








Using the "plenty" argument, then the USAF would apparently be wasting
its
effort with the SDB; I mean, heck, the A-10 or F-16 can carry oodles of
Mark
82's, right? But the folks in charge seem quite interested in being able
to
both increase the number of munitions carried per sortie, and at the same
time take advantage of more precise engagement capabilities with smaller
warheads to reduce collateral damage--why do you think the same
philosophy
does not make sense in the JCM versus Maverick debate?


You'll also note they're keeping LGBs around though. SDBs are great
if you're attacking a stationary target who's location is known or if
you have a guy on the ground to get you a GPS coordinate but if you
are trying to hit a moving target you'll want an LGB not an SDB.

Not necessarily. The USAF and USN have been involved with some interesting
tests involving hitting *moving* (not just mobile) targets with non-laser
guided weapons, using datalinked information from airborne radars to update
the munition after it has been dropped. ISTR reading where a LMCO system of
that sort has already chalked up a couple of "hits" during tests. And if the
target is moving and you *do* have a laser lock on it, JCM will do the
job--it has that semi active laser capability, remember?


*sigh* Try to stay on topic. Or at least in context. I was saying
you aren't going to be able to hit moving targets with GPS. Sure
they've done some tests. That was several years ago and you'll notice
we haven't heard anything about it since. It's one thing to get a
group of aircraft together to support hitting a target moving in a
straight line. Quite another to support scores of strike aircraft who
could be anywhere trying to hit god-knows-what. If you have an army
on the move supported by SA-17sor moving targets inside a zone
defended by SA-17s (or anything better for that matter) you're not
going to want to try to take them out with JCM. Not if you're smart
anyway. IF they're emmitting then sure, you can take a HARM shot. If
they're just hanging out waiting offline then you're out of luck with
the HARM.




On
that same note a JCM will not be able to handle all Maverick targets,
especially if you factor in the LOAL capability that is being looked
into.

But from what I gather, JCM will also have LOAL capability (according to
LMCO), so what advantage does Maverick offer in that regard?


Range.






I'm not saying JCM couldn't handle many of the targets
currently assigned to Maverick but it's not a 100% solution. A good
example happened during Desert Storm. You had a couple A-10s tooling
around in the boonies looking for targets of opportunity and they saw
a big bunker with guys standing around it's open door so they flew a
Maverickthrough the open door and destroyed it. An itty bitty 25
pound warhead won't have the effect of a 125 (or 300 for that matter)
pound warhead on a bunker and from a practicle standpoint you aren't
going to get a GPS guided anything through it on short notice without
a guy on the ground.


You seem to have an erroneous view of what the JCM warhead is all about. It
uses a tandem warhead system--a shaped charge to punch an entry way for the
following blast/frag warhead

Well what it "sounds" like is a roughly 25 pound warhead.




. Sounds like your bunker could have been taken
down by a JCM just as well as that Maverick.


There's that range thing again.



Care to guess what the effect
of even ten pounds of HE going off *inside* a bunker would be?

Yeah. Nothing like a 125 or 300 pound warhead.



Guarantee you
none of the occupants are going to be able to tell you about it for quite a
while--if ever.

Maybe not the people but the equipment is another matter.






At best you'd have to use a laser system on the
aircraft (which the A-10 doesn't have) to get a GPS coordinate but
since you want the bomb to go INSIDE the bunker THROUGH the open door
I'm not sure you'd have a lot of luck getting that coordinate where
you want it.

Since JCM offers three different modes of targeting, I believe it would be
more capable in this regard than any single-mode Maverick.


Provided that the defenders don't have SAMs that out-range JCM. Much
more likely than with Maverick.




From what I have read, the actual effective range of maverick is less than
what JCM is supposed to offer; Maverick having what one source credited as
about a 14 km *effective* maximum range, versus 16 km for JCM.


According to Lockheed's sheet on the JCM it's 16km for rotary wing and
28 for fixed wing. For the Maverick the info I've found lists about
is also 28km. For LOAL Maverick Raytheon says "over 20 miles" (32km)
but I've seen 40 miles mentioned too. Unfortunately I can't locate
the 40 mile figure. It might have been in Jane's or something. The
thing is if LOAL Maverick only gets you twenty miles AND JCM has LOAL
capability I'm inclined to agree with you. OTH if LOAL Maverick is in
the 30 to 40 mile range I think it would be sacrificing capability.






Or,
coversely, if the striker has to provide its own air defense in this
scenario, which would be better--the F-16 with only two pylons remaining
(after adding a couple of extra AIM-120's to the sortie requirment)
lugging
two AGM-65's, or the same aircraft carrying four or six JCM's?

Brook

Those AIM-120s aren't going to do you much good against an SA-17
battery. On the other hand with an LOAL Maverick you could fire from
outside the SAM's range whereas with a JCM you could not.

Not according to what I have been reading. If that info has not been
correct, please provide your numbers.

See my above comment. Until I can track down the 40 mile figure for
LOAL Maverick I'm thinking it might have been an error. I'd think if
anybody Raytheon would talking about it but they say only "20+ miles".

Scott Ferrin wrote in message
...

If they ever figure out how to effectively jam GPS all of those GPS
dependant wonder weapons are going to be pretty limited.

Can you name which weapons are "GPS dependent"? JDAM is not (it uses an
inertial guidance system, with GPS updates providing enhanced accuracy,
but
it is still pretty accurate with just the inertial), and I doubt SDB will
be, either.

JDAM, JSOW, JASSM. Sure they have inertial backups but they aren't
going to be flying into any open doors or individual buildings with
them. If GPS is down that means they get their initial coordinate
from the launching aircraft's INS. Those drift and aren't precision
by any stretch.

You have it distinctly backwards--the inertial is the primary guidance
system, with GPS providing enhanced capability. Without GPS it is still
credited with a 30 meter CEP, so hitting that building, if it is a decent
sized one, is a real likelihood--taking down the door is not. But given that
JDAM comes in a minimum size package of 500 pounds, I doubt hitting the door
is required in the first place. As to getting its positional update from the
launch aircraft, normally that is the case (though AMSTE changes the picure
to include after launch updates from other sources)--and if you are
speculating that the launch aircraft *also* is being jammed throughout its
approach, that is one heck of a GPS jammer you have working for you.


JCM is to use three guidance systems, all packaged into one
missile--MMW radar, semi-active laser, and IR. So your point would be...?

Well since GPS isn't a JCM form of guidance you obviously MISSED my
point. I commented on JCM's short range and small warhead and you
said "well we could use XXX instead". "XXX" being a GPS guided weapon
of one kind or another.

That short range that is, in fact, not so "short" when employed from fixed
wing platforms? Which is in fact greater than that of the Maverick, from
what I have been able to find both on the web and in my references? Or the
"small warhead" that is in reality a tandem warhead? At this point you have
aparently mischaracterized JCM in every manner, and embarked upon an attmpt
to try and point to other systems as being inherently inaccurate (look up
the results of the AMSTE tests with JDAM before you go to far out on a limb
on that one)...




Not to mention that the DoD has apparently been staying a jump ahead of
jamming attempts to date, and has expressed a strong desire to continue
in
that mode.


Great. Doesn't mean they'll always succeed.

My money is on them. You know what kind of weapon was reportedly used to
kill a GPS jammer in Iraq, don't you? JDAM... now that is irony for you.


Also your
targeting options are going to be substantially less than a LOAL
Maverick not to mention the lack of precision compared to a Maverick.

Lack of precision? Can you point to any source that indicates JCM will be
*less* precise than the AGM-65 family?


Like I said, you missed the point. We're talking about GPS guided
weapons.

No, we are talking about JCM--look at the thread's title. You have
manufactured a case claiming that JCM is less capable than Maverick, but
your assumptions (i.e., it has a shorter range, when it does not; its
warhead is "small", ignoring the fact that it uses a tandem warhead design
to acheive increased penetration and lethality, etc.)have not proven to be
correct. Now you want to instead shift the focus to the other air delivered
systtems we now have, or will soon be fielding? Nope.




With a tri-mode seeker, it would be
hard to say that JCM will offer less targeting options than the Maverick,
which forces you to target using the single system available to that
particular variant.

A JCM will not be able to take out the full spectrum of Maverick
targets anymore than an SDB will be able to handle 2000lb BLU-109
targets.

And as I said earlier, if the target is such that it is determined a JCM
*can't* handle it, then other options will remain available. What is the
single "target set" that the military services are most concerned with
being
able to kill these days? Those that are mobile (the whole idea behind
reducing the sensor-to-shooter lagtime). How many mobile targets are
there
that can't be killed by a JCM but can be killed by a Maverick?


Well you go hit those SA-17 sites with your JCM and I'll use a LOAL
Maverick. Who do you think will have more fun?

Your's, being as it actually has a shorter maximum engagement range and
relies on a single targeting mode. Of course, if you want to ignore those
facts, your mileage might differ...



Darned few
(medium sized and larger combatant vessels being the majority of those
few,
though JCM's dual/tandem warhead would not make life easy for *any*
patrol
combatatnt it hits--and we still have Harpoon to deal with those). If the
target is a MBT, then you need a direct hit to be assured of killing
it--even with a Maverick; so why would JCM be a less capable missile in
this
regard?

Range, range, range.

Regarding which you are apparently wrong, wrong, wrong.

LMCO claims JCM employed from a fixed wing asset will have a maximum range
of more than 28 km (see
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/4550.pdf ). Maverick comes in at a
maximum of 26 km (www.astronautix.com/lvs/maverick.htm ). And some sources
indicate the real max range of Maverick is actually less--in the order of 23
km.



Using the "plenty" argument, then the USAF would apparently be wasting
its
effort with the SDB; I mean, heck, the A-10 or F-16 can carry oodles
of
Mark
82's, right? But the folks in charge seem quite interested in being
able
to
both increase the number of munitions carried per sortie, and at the
same
time take advantage of more precise engagement capabilities with
smaller
warheads to reduce collateral damage--why do you think the same
philosophy
does not make sense in the JCM versus Maverick debate?


You'll also note they're keeping LGBs around though. SDBs are great
if you're attacking a stationary target who's location is known or if
you have a guy on the ground to get you a GPS coordinate but if you
are trying to hit a moving target you'll want an LGB not an SDB.

Not necessarily. The USAF and USN have been involved with some
interesting
tests involving hitting *moving* (not just mobile) targets with non-laser
guided weapons, using datalinked information from airborne radars to
update
the munition after it has been dropped. ISTR reading where a LMCO system
of
that sort has already chalked up a couple of "hits" during tests. And if
the
target is moving and you *do* have a laser lock on it, JCM will do the
job--it has that semi active laser capability, remember?


*sigh* Try to stay on topic.

LOL! This from the guy who has tried to turn this into a tapdance regarding
GPS reliability? And is advocating a system (LOAL Maverick) that, accoring
to its manufacturer, itself is reliant upon GPS in order to get optimal
performance?

Or at least in context. I was saying
you aren't going to be able to hit moving targets with GPS. Sure
they've done some tests. That was several years ago and you'll notice
we haven't heard anything about it since.

AMSTE was tested last October against a moving target. An ongoing and so far
pretty succesful program.


It's one thing to get a
group of aircraft together to support hitting a target moving in a
straight line. Quite another to support scores of strike aircraft who
could be anywhere trying to hit god-knows-what.

Neither of which your *shorter range* Maverick does anything to improve.

If you have an army
on the move supported by SA-17sor moving targets inside a zone
defended by SA-17s (or anything better for that matter) you're not
going to want to try to take them out with JCM. Not if you're smart
anyway.


Going after them with fewer (per sortie) shorter range Mavericks is not a
good idea, IMO.


IF they're emmitting then sure, you can take a HARM shot. If
they're just hanging out waiting offline then you're out of luck with
the HARM.

So you gain a couple km more standoff range with your JCM, not to mention
three methods of targeting them--versus one for Maverick. Again, not a good
idea to go with Maverick in that scenario, IMO.





On
that same note a JCM will not be able to handle all Maverick targets,
especially if you factor in the LOAL capability that is being looked
into.

But from what I gather, JCM will also have LOAL capability (according to
LMCO), so what advantage does Maverick offer in that regard?


Range.

Point to sources that indicate Maverick has a longer range than JCM, please.







I'm not saying JCM couldn't handle many of the targets
currently assigned to Maverick but it's not a 100% solution. A good
example happened during Desert Storm. You had a couple A-10s tooling
around in the boonies looking for targets of opportunity and they saw
a big bunker with guys standing around it's open door so they flew a
Maverickthrough the open door and destroyed it. An itty bitty 25
pound warhead won't have the effect of a 125 (or 300 for that matter)
pound warhead on a bunker and from a practicle standpoint you aren't
going to get a GPS guided anything through it on short notice without
a guy on the ground.


You seem to have an erroneous view of what the JCM warhead is all about.
It
uses a tandem warhead system--a shaped charge to punch an entry way for
the
following blast/frag warhead

Well what it "sounds" like is a roughly 25 pound warhead.

LMCO indicates it is capable of killing bunkers, and I doubt that the Army
would weant this puppy if it did not have that rudimentary capability--but
they do want it. What does that tell you?




. Sounds like your bunker could have been taken
down by a JCM just as well as that Maverick.


There's that range thing again.

There is that whole "what range thing?" again, too.




Care to guess what the effect
of even ten pounds of HE going off *inside* a bunker would be?

Yeah. Nothing like a 125 or 300 pound warhead.

Like the other poster noted, just killing a tank is just as good as
scattering the tank's remains about a wide area of the battlefield--same
thing goes for bunkers. In fact, if the battle is up close and the
friendlies are in danger close margins, then the less catastrophic kill
capability is generally preferred.




Guarantee you
none of the occupants are going to be able to tell you about it for quite
a
while--if ever.

Maybe not the people but the equipment is another matter.

Equipment is useless without people to make it work; and I do not share your
conviction that the overpressure and fragmentation effects generated by the
JCM are going to be worthless against any equipment in samesaid bunker.




At best you'd have to use a laser system on the
aircraft (which the A-10 doesn't have) to get a GPS coordinate but
since you want the bomb to go INSIDE the bunker THROUGH the open door
I'm not sure you'd have a lot of luck getting that coordinate where
you want it.

Since JCM offers three different modes of targeting, I believe it would
be
more capable in this regard than any single-mode Maverick.


Provided that the defenders don't have SAMs that out-range JCM. Much
more likely than with Maverick.

"What range thing?" again.





From what I have read, the actual effective range of maverick is less
than
what JCM is supposed to offer; Maverick having what one source credited
as
about a 14 km *effective* maximum range, versus 16 km for JCM.


According to Lockheed's sheet on the JCM it's 16km for rotary wing and
28 for fixed wing. For the Maverick the info I've found lists about
is also 28km. For LOAL Maverick Raytheon says "over 20 miles" (32km)
but I've seen 40 miles mentioned too. Unfortunately I can't locate
the 40 mile figure. It might have been in Jane's or something. The
thing is if LOAL Maverick only gets you twenty miles AND JCM has LOAL
capability I'm inclined to agree with you. OTH if LOAL Maverick is in
the 30 to 40 mile range I think it would be sacrificing capability.

Odd, looking at Raytheon's data sheet, I see no mention whatsoever of range,
increased or otherwise.

www.raytheon.com/products/ maverick/ref_docs/maverick.pdf

But I did note that LOAL Maverick is going to be depending upon that bugaboo
of your's, GPS--so I guess we ought to discard it outright?


Brooks



Or,
coversely, if the striker has to provide its own air defense in this
scenario, which would be better--the F-16 with only two pylons
remaining
(after adding a couple of extra AIM-120's to the sortie requirment)
lugging
two AGM-65's, or the same aircraft carrying four or six JCM's?

Brook

Those AIM-120s aren't going to do you much good against an SA-17
battery. On the other hand with an LOAL Maverick you could fire from
outside the SAM's range whereas with a JCM you could not.

Not according to what I have been reading. If that info has not been
correct, please provide your numbers.

See my above comment. Until I can track down the 40 mile figure for
LOAL Maverick I'm thinking it might have been an error. I'd think if
anybody Raytheon would talking about it but they say only "20+ miles".

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 03:51:20 GMT, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:39:57 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:

Yes, but the reliance on the one system (GPS) and the independence of the
Maverick's targeting system are serious points. What happens if someone can
jam or knock out the sats?

Or the LOAL datalinklink which is rather less bulletproof than you
seem to think.
Don't forget that to jam the sats requires either absurdly large
amounts of power for a ground based jammer (as the planes are well
above the earth and the directional antennae look up not down), or
you're in orbit and that means you're probably only jamming
periodically (unless you've got enough sats to cover the entier GPS
constellation - which is extremely unlikely and not the sort of thing
you can put in place secretly).

But an aircraft armed with JCM can engage far more targets more
cheaply than one armed with LOAL Maverick. And don't forget that the
command link on the LOAL Maverick (I assume it's commanded rather than
autonomous?) can also be jammed, and far more simply than jamming GPS
over a broad area.

How many targets does the one plane need to hit? It seems that people are
trying to turn fighter-bombers into the Hollywood 50-shot six-shooter
instead of dealing with numbers requirements and reserve force requirements.

Don;t blame me, blame the DoD. In DESERT Storm 4 planes were sent to
destroy each target. In IRAQI FREEDOM 1 plane was sent to bomb 4
targets on average. As Keving pointed out if bases are scarce, getting
more sorties on target may not be an option.

Also, the range issue is important. If the flier must take a plane deeper
into a danger area to launch his weapon, it risks the craft, the pilot, and
the ability of such to use the rest of their weapons to good effect on that
sortie at the least.

JCM has the range, unles you're postulating that teh LOAL Maverick
also inherits the turboject of the "Longhorn" Maverick concept.

Quite frankly there are not many battlefield targets that could
withstand a JCM, and those that could are the ones with active
defences (Like Shtora), which will find it easier to engage a larger
missile like a Maverick than a smaller JCM.

Better to risk a missile than a pilot getting close to one of those things
to fire a smaller weapon with lesser range.

And why exactly is a pilot worried about a tank armed with Shtora?
It's a tank self defence ssytem, not a SAM. The SAMs will *not*
survive a hit from either JCM or Maverick.

At which point you whistle up a couple of CBU-97.

Which would be nice, yes, but how much room do they take up on the racks?

If 90% of the targets can be seviced by JCM, then you load up with
only a few. And they take up the same space as a Maverick (i.e. one
pylon).

Plus, if they are on other planes, how far out are they, can they be
diverted, and how does this fit in the "more weapons, less planes"
arrangement? Not to mention that if one is worried about Maverick or JCM
range, getting close enough to drop CBUs.... and how big are CBUs for such
an antimissile defense, if Mav is considered a large target? I'm asking
because I am sure you have more knowledge on that one than me....

Well first of all, if range worries you then you use a WCMD launched
at hish speed and altitude to get a good range, and by the time you
get within the range of Shtora they're not dealing with a large CBU,
but a cloud of bomblets/skeets, all of which are very small and each
is capable of providing the kill.

Does LOAL Maverick have a role for which it is particularly suited?
Probably, but the role can be covered quite nicely by JCM plus other
systems with more flexibility and without adding another system to the
inventory.

Working a system that is Maverick compatable into things spares having to go
to futher lengths than such in another system, actually.

Not particularly clear sentence here, but I assume you meant htere is
already a spares holding - but of course there won't be when JCM
arrives, as it is supposed to replace the Hellfire/TOW/Maverick and
their associated spares.

Peter Kemp